Support NeoGAF

[br3wnor]

Ronan Farrow was really an active Gaffer? What kind of poster was he?

 

[BigJonsson]

We just visit sites like moviepoopshoot.com

Heh, it's funny because that site is from a Miramax movie

 

[Ridley327]

Rumor is he likes "groom" actresses.

They don't go into it in too much detail in Down & Dirty Pictures, as I imagine that Peter Biskind couldn't find anything too damning on that front at the time, but he did come across as unusually doting of Gwyneth Paltrow.

Keith Calder on Twitter:

"If Harvey Weinstein can afford to pay all these lawyers, then he can afford to pay the $120,115 he owes us for ALL THE BOYS LOVE MANDY LANE"

https://twitter.com/keithcalder/status/915732905711722496

For those that don't know, All the Boys Love Mandy Lane was completed and screened at film festivals in 2006, which the Weinsteins picked up for the "intent" of releasing it wide. It was not released until 2013 in the US, and at that point, it was more or less dumped onto VOD platforms with a super limited theatrical release.

 

[kevin1025]

For those that don't know, All the Boys Love Mandy Lane was completed and screened at film festivals in 2006, which the Weinsteins picked up for the "intent" of releasing it wide. It was not released until 2013 in the US, and at that point, it was more or less dumped onto VOD platforms with a super limited theatrical release.

Yep. I'd say it deserved better. I think it released in Europe in 2007 or 2008, if I'm remembering right, and its complete disappearance for years is wild.

 

[Shauni]

Hope you guys who thought Gawker's demise was a good thing don't complain if his lawyers kill these stories.

Hope you guys who think Gawker being comparable to the New York Times and NBC think really hard about stuff in th future

 

[PsihoPerihelion]

It seems like a lot of gaffers are in the know when it comes to Hollywood. Do a lot of you work in the film industry?

lol, they even joke at the Oscar telecast about Harvey's misbehaving. All you need to do is read a couple news and there it is.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Hope you guys who thought Gawker's demise was a good thing don't complain if his lawyers kill these stories.

If his lawyers kill this story, it's because the journalists don't have enough credible to run the story.

Given that everyone knows he's an asshole and pretty brusque, one imagines it's definitely something like sexual harassment or abuse of employees far beyond the pale.

 

[berzeli]

Dear god I hope this story kills his career.

And if it is of the "Harvey is a creep" variety, then I wouldn't exactly be surprised. Just take a listen to this joke from the presentation of the 2013 Oscar nominees, and that's from the damn Oscars not exactly an institution known for its poisonous jabs.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

Gawker released court-order sealed evidence in a blackmail case against Hogan, this isn't even close to the same situation.

Hope you guys who think Gawker being comparable to the New York Times and NBC think really hard about stuff in th future

There's a difference between a news story being reported and airing a sex tape of someone.

Gawker wasn't the be-all and end-all of entertainment reporting. I'm sure other news organizations can pick up the slack without choosing to publish sex tapes.

Look man, if you guys think the Gawker ruling isn't weighing heavily on editorial decision-making in every newsroom in America then be my guest.

And if you think that the powers-that-be is using the case to advocate "well we gotta be 110% sure with our sources on this one" and not a blind endorsement of CYA, I'm happy you got the world you wanted.

There's a reason why what happened to Gawker is disturbing versus say, Rolling Stone.

 

[HyperZone<3]

there's a pretty good chance The Weinstein Company won't last through next year anyway. They haven't had a solid hit in ages, they've scaled back their distribution efforts heavily over the last few years, they've sold off films rather than release them themselves, and they didn't buy anything from Toronto/Cannes/Sundance this year, and their upcoming release schedule is not exactly packed or promising.

It looks like they've bet the farm on the performance of their upcoming films (Paddington 2, The Upside with Kevin Hart and Bryan Cranston being their likeliest hits). If the films they've got banked don't make some though, I wouldn't be optimistic about them sticking around.

 

[HyperZone<3]

I don't know if this is about Harvey Weinstein, but there's not too many other people who it could possibly be.

 

[kevin1025]

there's a pretty good chance The Weinstein Company won't last through next year anyway. They haven't had a solid hit in ages, they've scaled back their distribution efforts heavily over the last few years, they've sold off films rather than release them themselves, and they didn't buy anything from Toronto/Cannes/Sundance this year, and their upcoming release schedule is not exactly packed or promising.

It looks like they've bet the farm on the performance of their upcoming films (Paddington 2, The Upside with Kevin Hart and Bryan Cranston being their likeliest hits). If the films they've got banked don't make some though, I wouldn't be optimistic about them sticking around.

They have the Furby movie rights, surely things will turn around!

But if they're still around in 2019, they have a stake in Artemis Fowl, which could be huge for them. But by then it's likely they'll have to let it go.

 

[hodayathink]

I don't know if this is about Harvey Weinstein, but there's not too many other people who it could possibly be.

Especially the "my ex sold a movie to my rapist" part.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The Legend of Harvey Scissorhands



One can only imagine how he went in on the women who delivered pictures to him.

He's also the fucker who tried to cut Princess Mononoke and Snowpiercer. Both Hayao Miyazaki and Bong Joon-Ho told him to go fuck himself. In the case of Princess Mononoke, it got released anyways and kicked off the era of Miyazaki films being on Disney DVD and Blu-ray. In the case of Snowpiercer, the movie got buried in the US and only turned up years later on Blu-ray where it sold well because Bong Joon-Ho is just that awesome and he went with Netflix for the worldwide distribution of his next film Okja.

 

[Shauni]

Look man, if you guys think the Gawker ruling isn't weighing heavily on editorial decision-making in every newsroom in America then be my guest.

And if you think that the powers-that-be is using the case to advocate "well we gotta be 110% sure with our sources on this one" and not a blind endorsement of CYA, I'm happy you got the world you wanted.

There's a reason why what happened to Gawker is disturbing versus say, Rolling Stone.

Uh, being 110% of your sources was a thing way before the Gawker case. That's always been part of investigative journalism.

 

[hodayathink]

Uh, being 110% of your sources was a thing way before the Gawker case. That's always been part of investigative journalism.

I mean, it's basically the difference between investigative journalism and tabloid journalism.

 

[Foggy]

Look man, if you guys think the Gawker ruling isn't weighing heavily on editorial decision-making in every newsroom in America then be my guest.

I hate to break it to you but concerns over being sued into oblivion by billionaires/multimillionaires is not a new thing. This dynamic has always existed.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

He's also the fucker who tried to cut Princess Mononoke and Snowpiercer. Both Hayao Miyazaki and Bong Joon-Ho told him to go fuck himself.

Miyazaki did it in style:

Miyazaki taps a cigarette from a silver case. The Disney deal suits him, he explains, because he has stuck to his guns. His refusal to grant merchandising rights means that there is no chance of any Nausicaa happy meals or Spirited Away video games. Furthermore, Disney wields no creative control. There is a rumour that when Harvey Weinstein was charged with handling the US release of Princess Mononoke, Miyazaki sent him a samurai sword in the post. Attached to the blade was a stark message: "No cuts."

The director chortles. "Actually, my producer did that. Although I did go to New York to meet this man, this Harvey Weinstein, and I was bombarded with this aggressive attack, all these demands for cuts." He smiles. "I defeated him."

 

[B-Dubs]

Look man, if you guys think the Gawker ruling isn't weighing heavily on editorial decision-making in every newsroom in America then be my guest.

And if you think that the powers-that-be is using the case to advocate "well we gotta be 110% sure with our sources on this one" and not a blind endorsement of CYA, I'm happy you got the world you wanted.

There's a reason why what happened to Gawker is disturbing versus say, Rolling Stone.

Do you not know how journalism works? The bold is bog standard for reputable outlets. If someone screws up and they have to issue a retraction it's generally seen as a huge issue internally.

 

[George Oscar Bluth II]

Miyazaki did it in style:

"Although I did go to New York to meet this man, this Harvey Weinstein, and I was bombarded with this aggressive attack, all these demands for cuts." He smiles. "I defeated him."

LOL

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

I wonder if Quentin Tarantino will come to Harvey scissorhands defense this time? He has a notoriously bad temper, and it wouldn't be the first time he's been accused of some heinous stuff.

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/harvey-weinstein-no-charges-groping-allegations-1201468673/

http://defamer.gawker.com/tell-us-what-you-know-about-harvey-weinsteins-open-sec-1695071092

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/ashley-judd-sexual-harassment-studio-mogul-shower-1201610666/

 

[IdreamofHIME]

I can confirm, he did indeed green light the Mist TV show.
Jail him.

 

[shintoki]

I always figured that the producer from Tropic Thunder was based on him.

So was the one angry producer on Entourage they dumped for JC.

 

[Stoop Man]

This was January 1996, two months before an Oscar ceremony in which the only Miramax films to really contend would be Mighty Aphrodite (two nominations, one win) and Il Postino (five nominations, four losses). This must have felt like a step backward after the 1995 ceremony, in which Miramax had five films competing in the major categories at an event that was defined by the dichotomy between the bloated, square Hollywood status quo and the cool, Euro-inflected alternative represented by Team Miramax. Pulp Fiction vs. Forrest Gump was just the tip of the iceberg: There’s getting a Best Picture nomination for the first indie film to gross more than $100 million, and then there are real baller moves like getting two nominations for Krzysztof Kie&#347;lowski and helping to invent Kate Winslet and Peter Jackson by forcing Heavenly Creatures into the conversation. Less than a year later, Harvey must have felt like he was falling behind in the dick-measuring contest that was mid-1990s indie-to-mainstream crossover film; he smelled Oscars on Sling Blade and pounced.

He also had gotten out his checkbook — and had agreed to give Thornton final cut — before he finished watching the movie. The very next day, feeling a wave of overspender’s panic if not flat-out buyer’s remorse, Harvey tried to rescind this untested director’s final cut and asked Thornton to cut 20 minutes. Thornton refused, so Weinstein refused to accept delivery of the film — and thus refused to pay for it — until the running time was truncated. According to Elwes, at one point Weinstein called Thornton at home in the middle of the night, and the following exchange ensued:
HARVEY: I’m a big, fat, hairy Jew worth $180 million and I can do whatever I want! I’m gonna sell the picture to HBO. You’re not gonna get a Best Picture.

BILLY BOB: Ah don’t give a sheet. Ah made the movie fo’ me, not fo’ anyone else, ah’ve seen it and I’ve enjoyed it, so fuck yuh. Ah’m going to stick a fork in yo’ neck, motherfucka. Yuh not so tough, ah’m Billy Bob, ah’m gonna kick yuh ass, take yuh out to the wagon and whup your butt!

HARVEY: You’re a redneck, an ignorant piece of shit!

BILLY BOB: Ah’m gonna cut off a horse’s head and put it in yuh bed.

HARVEY: This is because I’m Jewish, right? Tell the truth, Billy.
This is about as convivial as threatening banter between two self-loathing narcissists gets, no? In the end, Thornton wouldn’t budge.

Yeah that's Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder.

 

[Krev]

He's also the fucker who tried to cut Princess Mononoke and Snowpiercer. Both Hayao Miyazaki and Bong Joon-Ho told him to go fuck himself. In the case of Princess Mononoke, it got released anyways and kicked off the era of Miyazaki films being on Disney DVD and Blu-ray. In the case of Snowpiercer, the movie got buried in the US and only turned up years later on Blu-ray where it sold well because Bong Joon-Ho is just that awesome and he went with Netflix for the worldwide distribution of his next film Okja.

Weinstein could never admit he was wrong about Snowpiercer.

I didn't see the movie as commercial in a 2500 screen launch, which they wanted to do. I saw it as an art house film, the way he directed it. I said we should cut 20 minutes and a few other things. Major directors who I will not name said the same thing to me. Some of the biggest directors in the world said Harvey's helping you. We came up with this idea about VOD and &#8216;Snowpiercer' worked great. Then I got criticized. They said, had I had the guts to go wide with such a great movie it would have done well. I owned Australia on the movie and I told them, go wide. We bombed.

Here he blatantly lies, since Snowpiercer opened on a whopping 2 screens in Australia with the highest per theatre average of the year.

 

[kevin1025]

I wonder if Quentin Tarantino will come to Harvey scissorhands defense this time? He has a notoriously bad temper, and it wouldn't be the first time he's been accused of some heinous stuff.

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/harvey-weinstein-no-charges-groping-allegations-1201468673/

http://defamer.gawker.com/tell-us-what-you-know-about-harvey-weinsteins-open-sec-1695071092

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/ashley-judd-sexual-harassment-studio-mogul-shower-1201610666/

I think Weinstein just hosted Tarantino's engagement party. I don't see him abandoning ship.

 

[Raijin_Cain]

I remember reading a couple of these sites who claim to have all these inside info and "dirt" on celebrities a couple of years ago.

I'd like to check it out again but I cant remember the name.

Can anyone name the most famous sites that do that?

Thanks.

PS - I dont mean TMZ, I mean sites that post about stuff like this with Harvey.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

Do you not know how journalism works? The bold is bog standard for reputable outlets. If someone screws up and they have to issue a retraction it's generally seen as a huge issue internally.

Actually I'm well aware, but before 2016, usually one bad story doesn't end the outlet. It's settled out of court and treated as cost of doing business because after all, news outlets fuck up all the time.

Now they gotta wonder whether anyone--usually rich and powerful--with a vendetta can go after them on a story they do not like, any story really.

And let's be clear here. If retractions are as damaging as we thought then the NYT never should've recovered from WMDs. But because it wasn't a story that damaged the kind of people you can't offend, NYT can go about its business with nary a slap on the wrist.

I hate to break it to you but concerns over being sued into oblivion by billionaires/multimillionaires is not a new thing. This dynamic has always existed.

But do you not see that the editorial-business wall becomes that much more difficult to maintain when the people in charge can point to a media company as high profile as Gawker getting nuked off the face of the earth?
In days past the cost was a big chunk of change. Today, it's existential.

 

[The Kree]

I remember reading a couple of these sites who claim to have all these inside info and "dirt" on celebrities a couple of years ago.

I'd like to check it out again but I cant remember the name.

Can anyone name the most famous sites that do that?

Thanks.

PS - I dont mean TMZ, I mean sites that post about stuff like this with Harvey.

Crazydaysandnights.net

 

[RustyNails]

So why does Harvey Weinstein like to cut movie run times?

 

[Raijin_Cain]

Crazydaysandnights.net

Thank you. This was one of them.

I remember there was another one with a white background.

It was a famous site.

Anyone know the name?

 

[hodayathink]

So why does Harvey Weinstein like to cut movie run times?

I think it's more that he likes to try to make movies more "commercial", which usually involves making them simpler and cutting out things that he deems unimportant or complicated.

 

[kevin1025]

So why does Harvey Weinstein like to cut movie run times?

I think it's more that he likes to try to make movies more "commercial", which usually involves making them simpler and cutting out things that he deems unimportant or complicated.

Yeah, it's usually that. According to stories, he always figured the audience was too dumb, and so he liked to cut movies to be easier to grasp. Plus I imagine he wanted to get the running time as low as possible so that you get more showings out of a day.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Thank you. This was one of them.

I remember there was another one with a white background.

It was a famous site.

Anyone know the name?

Blind gossip?

 

[Shauni]

Actually I'm well aware, but before 2016, usually one bad story doesn't end the outlet. It's settled out of court and treated as cost of doing business because after all, news outlets fuck up all the time.

Now they gotta wonder whether anyone--usually rich and powerful--with a vendetta can go after them on a story they do not like, any story really.

And let's be clear here. If retractions are as damaging as we thought then the NYT never should've recovered from WMDs. But because it wasn't a story that damaged the kind of people you can't offend, NYT can go about its business with nary a slap on the wrist.



But do you not see that the editorial-business wall becomes that much more difficult to maintain when the people in charge can point to a media company as high profile as Gawker getting nuked off the face of the earth?
In days past the cost was a big chunk of change. Today, it's existential.

Gawker played fast and lose with a lot of that shit. They were always on the edge of getting burned, and the specifics of the Hogan case just happened to line up badly for them. It's not the same. The fact that you are comparing something like Gawker to th New York Times tells me you probably don't know as much about Gawker or the Gawker-Hogan case than you think you do.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

Miyazaki did it in style:

So in a battle of two raging assholes Miyazaki won? He must be incredibly scary to work with.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

So in a battle of two raging assholes Miyazaki won? He must be incredibly scary to work with.

By all accounts he's the Japanese James Cameron.

 

[Raijin_Cain]

Blind gossip?

I think thats the one.

Thank you so much!

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

Shot in the dark, he sexually harassed someone or multiple someones.

This is Hollywood we are talking about, sexual harassment would be small time if that's all it was. Given all the rumors about what goes on behind closed doors around that place, there's always the (probably decent) chance it's something far, far worse.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

This is Hollywood we are talking about, sexual harassment would be small time if that's all it was. Given all the rumors about what goes on behind closed doors around that place, there's always the (probably decent) chance it's something far, far worse.

Let's not start speculating and making up bs then running with it.

 

[B-Dubs]

Actually I'm well aware, but before 2016, usually one bad story doesn't end the outlet. It's settled out of court and treated as cost of doing business because after all, news outlets fuck up all the time.

Now they gotta wonder whether anyone--usually rich and powerful--with a vendetta can go after them on a story they do not like, any story really.

And let's be clear here. If retractions are as damaging as we thought then the NYT never should've recovered from WMDs. But because it wasn't a story that damaged the kind of people you can't offend, NYT can go about its business with nary a slap on the wrist.

In Gawker's case it wasn't a matter of one bad story ending things, it was the fact the editors and publishers were damn near suicidal with their testimony. Regardless of everything else they could have won the case if they hadn't acted like such raging assholes while answering questions in court. Let alone treating their publication as a way to get back at their enemies, like in the Conde Naste blackmail case. If anything, he's the one that should have won a suit against them and not Hogan. Part of the reason they lost is they had a history of this shit and it caught up to them.

The NYT took a big credibility hit for a while and it severely damaged the reporter's career as a result. And that's ignoring what may have happened to the editors overseeing the story, I have no idea what happened in this case but I presume it wasn't pretty. The only saving grace is they were being lied to and didn't actively fuck shit up like Gawker did.

But this thread isn't about that shit. When it comes to big stories like this news organizations have always tried to nail them down as much as humanly possible. Nothing has changed in that regard.

 

[Fancyarcher]

Doesn't surprise me. I remember Harvey was already was the best guess as to who raped Rose McGowan, as disgusting and wrong as that sounds. Still watch him get off scot-free. Hollywood man!

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

In Gawker's case it wasn't a matter of one bad story ending things, it was the fact the editors and publishers were damn near suicidal with their testimony. Regardless of everything else they could have won the case if they hadn't acted like such raging assholes while answering questions in court. Let alone treating their publication as a way to get back at their enemies, like in the Conde Naste blackmail case. If anything, he's the one that should have won a suit against them and not Hogan. Part of the reason they lost is they had a history of this shit and it caught up to them.

The NYT took a big credibility hit for a while and it severely damaged the reporter's career as a result. And that's ignoring what may have happened to the editors overseeing the story, I have no idea what happened in this case but I presume it wasn't pretty. The only saving grace is they were being lied to and didn't actively fuck shit up like Gawker did.

But this thread isn't about that shit. When it comes to big stories like this news organizations have always tried to nail them down as much as humanly possible. Nothing has changed in that regard.

Even if they had won the suit, they were spending so much on litigation fees that it was already making it almost impossible for the company to operate. In a vacuum, I wouldn't want to see an outlet like Gawker prosper either, but the idea that it died, not because of its readers said to themselves, "enough is enough", but because a reclusive tech billionaire decided that he was going to leverage everything in his power to bring a prominent media company he hated to its knees is extraordinarily alarming.

Remember the insane Manti Teo story? In a post-Gawker world, does a news outlet run this story with essentially an unnamed woman's FB account and a friend of a friend's quotes as their sources?

Gawker played fast and lose with a lot of that shit. They were always on the edge of getting burned, and the specifics of the Hogan case just happened to line up badly for them. It's not the same. The fact that you are comparing something like Gawker to th New York Times tells me you probably don't know as much about Gawker or the Gawker-Hogan case than you think you do.

How about the UVA Rolling Stone story? In what is ostensibly a far more egregious error in judgment resulted in a $1.65M settlement and the magazine was allowed to continue. We readers no longer choose what's acceptable vs. what's not for a newspaper to report on. Billionaires do.

 

[B-Dubs]

Even if they had won the suit, they were spending so much on litigation fees that it was already making it almost impossible for the company to operate. In a vacuum, I wouldn't want to see an outlet like Gawker prosper either, but the idea that it died, not because of its readers said to themselves, "enough is enough", but because a reclusive tech billionaire decided that he was going to leverage everything in its power to bring a prominent media company he hated to its knees is extraordinarily alarming.

Remember the insane Manti Teo story? In a post-Gawker world, does a news outlet run this story with essentially an unnamed woman's FB account and a friend of a friend's quotes as their sources?

Without corroboration? They shouldn't. That's just basic reporting, you shouldn't want someone to run with stuff they can't prove. If they can prove what's being said then they should run it, if not they should keep at it until they can prove it.

Gawker did shit like print crap from their comments section as fact, without corroboration. They ask "Do you have a story about Louie CK raping someone?" then print the shit that wound up in the comments section without bothering to check to see if it's legit or not. Even TMZ doesn't go that far. They ignored almost every single ethical standard journalists are supposed to work by.

I don't entirely like how they died either, but they were playing with fire for a long long long time. Someone was going to nail them to the wall eventually.

How about the UVA Rolling Stone story? In what is ostensibly a far more egregious error in judgment resulted in a $1.65M settlement and the magazine was allowed to continue. We readers no longer choose what's acceptable vs. what's not for a newspaper to report on. Billionaires do.

Again, this was one instance compared to a pattern of behavior. Stop acting like Gawker only did that shit once and were flawless the rest of the time.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

Without corroboration? They shouldn't. That's just basic reporting, you shouldn't want someone to run with stuff they can't prove. If they can prove what's being said then they should run it, if not they should keep at it until they can prove it.

Gawker did shit like print crap from their comments section as fact, without corroboration. They ask "Do you have a story about Louie CK raping someone?" then print the shit that wound up in the comments section without bothering to check to see if it's legit or not. Even TMZ doesn't go that far. They ignored almost every single ethical standard journalists are supposed to work by.

I don't entirely like how they died either, but they were playing with fire for a long long long time. Someone was going to nail them to the wall eventually.

But that's the whole point isn't it? There's no editing room that will bat 1.000, and whereas in the past a couple settlements here and there were the cost of doing business, now it's a matter of life and death.

Gawker's made plenty of mistakes, but they ultimately deserved to either crash and burn or have a come to Jesus moment on their own terms. They didn't get that and that's why every newsroom across America is running more scared than they were before March 2016, when in fact we need them to be bolder than ever before.

Again, this was one instance compared to a pattern of behavior. Stop acting like Gawker only did that shit once and were flawless the rest of the time.

ABC recently had to settle for $177M for their 'Pink Slime' report. John Oliver's engaged in a frivolous lawsuit in WV. These gremlins are coming out of the woodwork, emboldened by the Gawker decision. And they're not just targeting repeat offenders.

Look man, it's pretty easy to see why they went after Gawker because they knew the public writ large would not be sympathetic. But these ripple effects are damning.

 

[B-Dubs]

But that's the whole point isn't it? There's no editing room that will bat 1.000, and whereas in the past a couple settlements here and there were the cost of doing business, now it's a matter of life and death.

Gawker's made plenty of mistakes, but they ultimately deserved to either crash and burn or have a come to Jesus moment on their own terms. They didn't get that and that's why every newsroom across America is running more scared than they were before March 2016, when in fact we need them to be bolder than ever before.

I don't know how you can see the WaPo and NYTimes (along with everyone else) having scoop after scoop and think they're running scared. The NYC tabloid papers are pretty close to Gawker in terms of "in your face style" and they have in no way slowed down. If anything they're more savage than ever.

Gawker deserved to die for all they've done, my only regret is that it was Thiel and Hogan and not that Conde Naste CFO they helped blackmail that did it.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

I don't know how you can see the WaPo and NYTimes (along with everyone else) having scoop after scoop and think they're running scared. The NYC tabloid papers are pretty close to Gawker in terms of "in your face style" and they have in no way slowed down. If anything they're more savage than ever.

Gawker deserved to die for all they've done, my only regret is that it was Thiel and Hogan and not that Conde Naste CFO they helped blackmail that did it.

WaPo and NYT are backed by billions of dollars. And they're doing great work (Her Emails not withstanding), but isn't this the lesson of Gawker in a nutshell? Work for billionaires or prepare to have billionaires come after you.

Glenn Thrush and Robert Costa don't have to worry. But those working at, say, Washington City Paper, or Texas Monthly, not so lucky.

 

[KonradLaw]

Hope you guys who thought Gawker's demise was a good thing don't complain if his lawyers kill these stories.

I hope people who thought Gawker's demise was wrong weren't complaining when all those celebrities had their nudes leaked and posted all over internet.

 

[Shauni]

ABC recently had to settle for $177M for their 'Pink Slime' report. John Oliver's engaged in a frivolous lawsuit in WV. These gremlins are coming out of the woodwork, emboldened by the Gawker decision. And they're not just targeting repeat offenders.

Look man, it's pretty easy to see why they went after Gawker because they knew the public writ large would not be sympathetic. But these ripple effects are damning.

Am I right on going on a limb here and saying you recently watched the Gawker Netflix documentary lol. Feels like you're echoing a lot of the same stuff from that but ignoring the context of the case as well as just basically misunderstanding that this is somehow some new thing and new risk. Hell, one of your examples is John Oliver and in the very segment he's being sued over he said the guy has a history of suing various people and publications who reported about him.

 

[kaskade]

Guess it was true

Decades of Sexual Harassment Accusations Against Harvey Weinstein

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html